Wow, almost 3 weeks late, sorry for my tardy timing and I assure you I haven't forgotten about the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
a) not sure what you mean by that - could you clarify, please?
|
Okay so a lot of traditional intellectual / conservative thinking of the foundation of the land is that almost all of the rights we all have as human beings, are from God, and that they are inalienable. The creator granted them to us, no man / government etc shall take them away.
I.e., natural rights:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Examples of contemporary definitions of this are the declaration of independence, the
Universal declaration of HR etc etc.
This very much gets into the weeds and is very very wonkish / much more than my liking / to my chagrin. To the extent that there are discussions as to whether the word is "unalienable" or "inalienable":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e092083ecc6b
Anyway I digress (I better get to the point or I will max out the bandwidth for this site).
Basically (to get right to the point) in arguing that the right is not granted by the constitution but that the document
restricts what the government can do is a very big legal distinction.
The second amendment states:
Quote:
|
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
|
Now I could keep talking about this for days but in quick terms (even the topic does deserve a much longer reply) the rights that God has given man come from God. The US constitution forbids man (the government) from infringing upon them. Is the way the document is created. Now I am in no way saying that it is your or my God given right to own a gun - that is not what I would determine to be a basic human right (not in this day and age).
However to restrict anything, the constitution would have to explicitly state as much - it doesn't. In this instance (an amendment to the constitution states very clearly that there shall we no infringement at all by the state).
That was my point to Ianch99 ; there is a distinction (not one without a difference) that the constitution does not in any way grant the right to own a gun, it merely restricts the government from banning you bearing a gun - does that make sense?
Quote:
|
b) when schoolkids, and others, are killed and maimed on a regular basis, not sure that could be defined as a "system working" - and we forget, in this country, all those injured will often have huge medical bills arising because of these frequent mass shootings.
|
I can't apologize enough for that comment - it was crass and unwarranted. Sometimes in arguing politics with seasonal political minds, I tended to hear arguments to the effect of "knowing what gun violence leads to the founders would still be in favor of something that carried out the lines in the DoI - because you can't have life or liberty preserved without the ability to defend it". None the less (true or not) I don't want to make excuses for my comments / try to justify them...the flippancy was inexcusable and I am sorry. I have a young daughter and I could only imagine how upset I would be if something happened to her due to gun violence. My apologies for the comment.